|From:||PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>|
|To:||Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Cc:||pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
>> did anybody think of a solution to this problem.
>> or more precisely: can there be a solution to this problem?
> Please post to the correct list (-performance) and provide information
> like PG version, postgresql.conf, the actual table definition, the
> resulting query plan, etc, etc...
this seems like more a developer question to me than a pre performance one.
it is not related to the table structure at all - it is basically an issue with incredibly large inheritance lists.
it applies to postgres 9 and most likely to everything before.
postgresql.conf is not relevant at all at this point.
the plan is pretty fine.
the question is rather: does anybody see a chance to handle such lists more efficiently inside postgres?
also, it is not the point if my data structure is sane or not. it is really more generic - namely a shortcut for this case inside the planing process.
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria
|Next Message||Greg Stark||2010-09-03 12:16:25||Re: Streaming a base backup from master|
|Previous Message||Stephen Frost||2010-09-03 12:04:42||Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...|